[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / lisperer / mde / rwby / tingles / vg / vietnam / xivlg ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Winner of the 75nd Attention-Hungry Games
/caco/ - Azarath Metrion Zinthos

March 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Tags: leftism (CLICK HERE FOR MORE LEFTIST 8CHAN BOARDS), politics, activism, news

File: 29653753be4e52f⋯.jpeg (231.44 KB, 947x729, 947:729, 61C9D826-F360-4A0B-8274-E….jpeg)

 No.2813718

>tfw you finally start to read Capital

How can you call yourself a Marxist if you don’t understand his critique of capitalism?

<b-b-but I watch Unruhe and Finnbol for my theory!!!1!

 No.2813736

File: 4bd4df3cb54cdbc⋯.jpg (40.78 KB, 946x656, 473:328, 6820a2076b6fa7d0a0b91c75f9….jpg)

Yep


 No.2813767

>>2813718

>be comrade OP

>spend a few months lurking and shitposting

>finally decided to start taking seriously "read a book advice"

>spend hours until he finally manage to find downloadable copy of capital

>never felt so powerful in his life

>barely finishes first page of Capital

>the power of dialectics is already strengthening his body and spirit

>"I guess this is enough for today, I should go to /leftypol/ and laugh at those brainlets haha"


 No.2813768

File: 7535d1e51dba2aa⋯.gif (2.9 MB, 500x540, 25:27, 1481814363767.gif)

>>2813718

Imagine calling yourself a Marxist without reading and fully understanding Hegel's "The Science of Logic"


 No.2813772

File: 21eecaf14b09f6c⋯.jpeg (56.71 KB, 604x600, 151:150, C6C0B7CE-F4F5-4F2D-824A-B….jpeg)

>mfw I read section one and discover that exchange-value is merely the form of appearance of value, which is human labor measured in duration

AT LAST I SEE


 No.2813773

File: 625c8d3d5aebf98⋯.png (484.89 KB, 614x1042, 307:521, 1504491897981.png)

>when you read the very first letter of the Communist Manifesto


 No.2813774

Capital seems too focus on production, which was fine for the 20th century but feels outdated by now. Capitalism is really, really good at adaptation and now the economy is mostly based on services. Is there any Marxist analysis on service based economy?


 No.2813775

File: d237348e40ebb9e⋯.jpeg (234.83 KB, 1095x730, 3:2, D708F504-12E0-4E71-B15A-7….jpeg)

>>2813773

>mfw you can’t speak German but you read the Manifesto in its original language so as to avoid bourgeois distortions


 No.2813776

>>2813774

Economy in the first world is based on services because capital is global and the imperial powers just shifted production to where the wages are low. Commodities still need to be created somewhere


 No.2813777

>>2813775

MADE BY ISLAM GANG


 No.2813780

>>2813774

>now the economy is mostly based on services.

Commodity production is at its highest point in human-history, capitalists in the imperial core have just chosen to shift most production to the third-world where they can exploit without labor laws and minimum wages. In the void we porky’s labor aristocracy consumer class


 No.2813781

>>2813780

Marx’s definition of productive labor is very broad too, so there’s a lot that goes on in the American economy that might not be classified under manufacturing that actually is productive. For instance, fast food isn’t counted as manufacturing or even as industry but it still is a productive job.

The US manufacturing economy in particular is actually very large being capitalized around $4 trillion. I once did some calculations using BLS statistics trying to find out how many people worked in productive industry in a total but conventionally limited sense. I believe I came up with about 20% or so or the workforce involved in it. I wouldn’t be surprised if it edged up to 25%-30% once you include those service jobs that are misclassified such as fry cooks.


 No.2813785

>>2813781

that which is given by nature and transformed by human labour, isnt that the definition of commodity. In that sense making burgers is definitely commodity production


 No.2813787

>>2813781

that which is given by nature and transformed by human labour into something useful*


 No.2813788

>>2813774

What do you suggest is fundamentally inapplicable from Marx's theory then to now?


 No.2813789

>>2813785

>>2813787

Yeah, for sure, but the strange thing is bourgeois economists classify it as a service instead of commodity production. I mean even Smith would have classified burger flipping as productive labor.

A lot of Marxists don’t go any deeper than the surface presentation of bourgeois statistics tho. So if they say only 12% of the workforce works in manufacturing they’ll usually parrot that as proof that Marx’s theories need to be fundamentally updated to meet today’s conditions. They typically won’t even bother to add other productive industrial sectors to the equation like building, mining, agriculture etc. despite the material being readily available. They just think productive work=factory for some reason.


 No.2813808

>>2813785

making burgers is imperialism


 No.2813871

>>2813718

>How can you call yourself a Marxist if you don’t understand his critique of capitalism?

This, I didn't call myself Marxist prior to reading Marx, I just said I was socialist. Now I'm a Marxist, I've read two volumes of Capital and a bunch of other stuff.


 No.2813872

>>2813774

>now the economy is mostly based on services

leaving aside what other people said (they're right), transport and comms are a productive act. a number of things classed as "services" are actually production.


 No.2813917

>>2813718

Indeed, well then Mr. Well read, would you like to debunk OP's lack of theory here?

>>>/leftyb/3233


 No.2814031

>>2813917

>arguing with retards on a RANDOM board

Nah fam


 No.2814190

Isn't capital shite? There are numerous authors who have dismantled the entire book


 No.2814201

>>2814190

Name a book about political economy that hasn't been "dismantled" by numerous authors.


 No.2814225

>>2814190

It's not shite, it's right. The bourgeois hate it because it's a scientific theory of why capitalism is fucked.


 No.2814226

>>2813775

marx or engels approved the english translationn of the manifesto iirc


 No.2814228

>>2814190

Apparently so many that you couldn't even name one


 No.2814237

File: bd2f7e3a945bd6a⋯.png (2.34 KB, 209x66, 19:6, sraffaprice.png)

>>2814190

I have so far yet to see a single bourgeois critique of Capital that doesn't rely on outright misunderstanding, and believe me I've looked. It's so flagrant that the only real explanation is that most bourgois economists are either liars, retarded, or both (usually both). The closest critique I have ever found that doesn't rely on outright misunderstanding or misrepresentation is the Sraffian transformation problem, and that one is still retarded when you realise that the main hypothesis in marxian price theory attempts to establish that there is a proportionality between mean embodied labour of a commodity and the mean of the market price over time. As such it is an empirical hypothesis which must be debunked by the data, which bourgeois economists shy away from because they are wrong and don't like to be proven wrong.

Also Sraffa is stupid, because his formulation on competitive price doesn't take into account MOP, making it non-marxian, which means his formulation actually has nothing to do with Marx's price theory. The very thing his formulation was supposed to challenge. Pic related, Sraffa's formulation of competitive price. l is labour, w is wages, r is rate of profit. Notice that lack of MOP taken into account


 No.2814250

>when you transcend Capital to realize that the LTV is not actually based on labor but the relationship of labor to the environment and labor's relation to labor


 No.2814278

>>2814237

Sraffa was a neo-Ricardian IIRC


 No.2814282

>tfw a lecturer who isn't even an economist says the LTV has been empirically been unproven

<tfw someone has managed to empirically disprove the entire fundamental basis of economics


 No.2814296

>>2814282

LTV, falling rate of profit, the "transformation problem" have all been proven numerous times or found to not be a "problem". And they have been tackled from different angles (Cock, Kliman, Kržan, Bajt and many others)


 No.2814302

File: 2225bb5fbe48d4b⋯.jpg (105.98 KB, 601x601, 1:1, 2225bb5fbe48d4b6c414c050b0….jpg)

>tfw too much of a brainlet to read capital


 No.2814305

>>2813718

Is volume '4' of Capital worth reading?


 No.2814312

>>2814305

Just watch the movie.


 No.2814333

>>2814237

Andrew Kliman, please leave (and learn some math.)


 No.2814344

>yfw you realize I read it over twenty years ago, and it's still garbage today.


 No.2814353

>>2814344

What do you reccomend?


 No.2815383

>>2813774

would be great but no


 No.2815471

>>2814353

basic economics by stefan molyneux




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / lisperer / mde / rwby / tingles / vg / vietnam / xivlg ]